P L D 1965 W (PLP)
SHAMSHUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZALUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHAMSHUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZALUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (SHAMSHUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZALUDDIN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mustafa for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑(Khairpur Division)‑Parties claiming to be from different wives of deceased‑One party completely ignored by Mukhtiarkar, not even giving them a hearing‑Such party declared to be included among heirs on appeal‑Other party taking plea that father of parties had entered into "exchange" whereby property in dispute was to be exclusive share of such party‑Deed of "exchange", however, did not exist on date of mutation but was executed on behalf of contestant party actually on 18‑12‑1958 whereas mutation had been sanctioned on 6‑5‑1955‑Decisions in appeal before Collector, and in Revision before Additional Commissioner, including as heirs offspring from second wife, upheld, leaving affected party to take such action in respect of deed of 18‑12‑1958 as they were advised. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Mustafa for Petitioners. Respondent No. 1 in person. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 23rd of October 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner Khairpur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected. The facts of the case are that, on 6‑5‑1955, the Mukhtiarkar Shikarpur sanctioned a mutation of inheritance in respect o1 the property of Khawind Dino in favour of the petitioners Nos. 1 to
7. The respondents were completely ignored. The respondents Nos. 1 to 7 who claimed to be the sons and daughters of the deceased from a second wife, Mst. Noor Jehan, respondent No. 5, went in appeal to the Deputy Collector, Shikarpur who accepted and directed that the names of the respondents be also included in the list of the heirs of the deceased. The petitioners went it revision to the Additional Commissioner, Khairpur but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have herd the learned counsel for the petitioners. He ha contended before me that the father of the petitioners had entered into an exchange whereby the property in dispute came to the exclusive share of the petitioners. The deed was actually executed on behalf of the respondents in favour of the petitioners on 18‑12‑1958. It is, however, conceded that, at the time the mutation was sanctioned, this deed was not even executed nor were the respondents heard by the Mukhtiarkar. More over, during the life‑time of the deceased, no action was taken by the petitioner to have the alleged settlement implemented. In these circumstances, the learned Deputy Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner, rightly rejected the request of the petitioners for excluding the respondents from inheritance. The second revision, therefore, fails and is rejected hereby. It is open to the petitioners to take such action as they like in respect of the alleged agreement and the deed executed on 18‑12‑1958. A. H. Petition dismissed.